Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXXIII: Provisions As to Bail and Bonds
Section 438: Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
A person who believes they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence can apply to the High Court or Court of Session for a direction that, if arrested, they be released on bail. This is commonly called anticipatory bail.
- Conditions can include being available for police questioning, not influencing witnesses, not leaving India without permission, and conditions under sub-section (3) of section 437.
- If later arrested without warrant, they must be released on bail, and any warrant issued by a Magistrate must be bailable.
- It does not apply to rape of young girls under sub-section (3) of section 376 and sections 376AB, 376DA and 376DB of the Indian Penal Code.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including—
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in confirmity with the direction of the 1. Subs. by Act 63 of 1980, s. 5, for —reasons‖ (w.e.f. 23-9-1980). 2. Ins. by Act 5 of 2009, s. 31 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009)
Court under sub-section (1). [(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 438 provides anticipatory bail: a direction by the High Court or Court of Session that if a person is arrested for a non-bailable offence, he shall be released on bail. It protects personal liberty against arrests made to humiliate or harass, and it is decided before any arrest takes place.
Who can apply and when
Any person who has reason to believe he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The belief must rest on reasonable grounds, not vague fear. An FIR need not yet have been registered.
Conditions
The court may impose conditions, such as making himself available for interrogation, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving India without permission, along with other conditions available for regular bail.
How long it lasts
A Constitution Bench has held that anticipatory bail need not be limited to a fixed period. Ordinarily it continues until the end of the trial, and does not automatically end when the accused is summoned or charges are framed. The court may still limit it in a particular case if special features require.
Factors courts weigh
The nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant's role, his antecedents, the possibility of fleeing justice, the risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses, and whether the accusation appears aimed at injuring or humiliating him. The power is discretionary and must be exercised with care, but liberty is not to be lightly curtailed.
Exclusions
The section does not apply to certain grave sexual offences against minors listed in sub-section (4). Some special laws also bar anticipatory bail.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 INSC 106
Protection under section 438 should not invariably be limited to a fixed period, and does not normally end when the accused is summoned or charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial; courts may impose conditions or limit tenure where special features require. Guiding principles were laid down.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
The foundational Constitution Bench ruling on anticipatory bail; anticipatory bail can be sought on a reasonable belief of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and the registration of a case is not a precondition.
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 INSC 690
Sections 41 and 41A are facets of Article 21; non-compliance with arrest safeguards entitles the accused to bail, and the Government may consider a separate Bail Act.
Common mistakes
- Assuming anticipatory bail must be time limited.
- Applying where there is no reasonable belief of arrest, only general apprehension.
- Overlooking statutory exclusions under sub-section (4) and special Acts.
Read with: Section 437 CrPC, Section 439 CrPC, Section 482 BNSS
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 438
-
Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of the appellants; issue of inordinate delay by Courts in deciding the bail and anticipatory bail applications.
-
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the pre-arrest bail to respondent-accused u/s.438 Cr.PC in respect of alleged commission of offenses punishable u/ss.118(1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3),…
-
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another
In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. Whether…
-
Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the subject FIR against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint.
-
Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the…
-
Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose whether the High Court justified in denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the 1988 Act and s.61(2) of the…
-
Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application of appellant praying for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss.409, 219 and 114 of IPC and also rejected the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
- Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Manju Bidhuri v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Arvind Dham v. Union of India & Ors
- Ms. X v. State & Anr
-
Siddique v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail.
- Islam v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Waseem Seikh v. State of NCT Delhi
- Narendra Surana v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Shalini Jain v. State of Delhi & Anr
-
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr.
Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his…
- Dilip Puri v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors
- Narinder Palgotra v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Aman Yadav v. The State NCT of Delhi
-
Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr.
Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act; when can it be said…
- Satbir Singh v. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- Md Liton v. State NCT of Delhi
- Rajender Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
-
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court.…
-
Sudeep Chatterjee v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused-appellant while granting provisional pre-arrest bail.
- Nandu Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Anr
- Bablu Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Ashok Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- Rajiv Rana v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Raja Ram v. State NCT of Delhi
-
Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.
The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two conditions imposed while granting bail. The two conditions…
- Jyoti Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi
- Neeraj Dengre @ Neeraj Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi
- Satish Kumar v. The State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi)
- Kabir Sablok v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Geetanjali Behl v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Ramesh Yadav v. State ( Govt. of Nct, Delhi)
- Mr. Sumit Verma @ Sumit Soni v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Krishna v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Vls Finance Ltd v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Rajni v. The State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Mohd Faizan v. State NCT of Delhi
- Naresh v. The State (Govt. of N.C.T. Ofd Elhi)
- Shivani v. The State (State of NCT of Delhi)
- Rajan Kumar @ Ashu Chauhan v. State of N.C.T of Delhi
- Bhajan Lal v. The State NCT of Delhi
- M Radha v. State of NCT
- Arvind v. State NCT of Delhi
- Shiv Kant Choudhary v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Bharat Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
- Keshav Gautam v. State of Gnctd
- Rohit Kumar v. The State (Nct of Delhi) Through Sho of Ps Mangol Puri & Anr
- Sh. Rajesh Gogna v. The State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi)
- Mahinder Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Sudhir Kumar v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi
- Punit Kumar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Saurabh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Rishab Nayyar v. State Gnct of Delhi
- Manu Wadhwa @ Mohit v. The State, Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Jaspal Singh Reyatt v. State NCT of Delhi
- Margub Beg v. State(Govt of NCT Delhi)
- Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi v. State of NCT Delhi
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Lokesh Sharma @ Sonu v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Prince Mathuram Jayachandran v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Manju Bala v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Rajeev Jhawar v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Dr. Tabassum Saifi v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Jai Pal Singh v. State, NCT of Delhi
- Mohd. Saleem Jafar v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Manu Wadhwa @ Mohit v. The State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
- Harsh Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Anil Sharma v. State ( NCT of Delhi)
- Pawan Pandey v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Gurmail Singh @ Gela v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb)
- Rishab Dwar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Abraham George v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
- Mahendra Gambhir v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
- Yogesh Sudhanshu Kumar v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
- Rajan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Sanjiv Dutta v. Sate of NCT of Delhi
- Sumit Gupta v. The State
- Dheeraj Manral v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr
- Ritu Jaju v. State of NCT Delhi
- Neeraj Jaju v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Anurav Jaju v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Naveen Yadav v. State
- Kashi Nath Shukla v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Nikhil Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi
-
Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi & Ors.
Interim orders passed by the High Court staying the investigations of the FIRs and the Enforcement Directorate, if justified.
-
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
The Amicus submitted report dated 10.02.2024 indicating the directions that have been complied with by the parties in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil**. On basis of the said…
- Shane Haider v. State of NCT of Delhi Through Sho Ps Pahar Ganj
- Suraj Prakash v. State
-
State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu
In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance (232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so recovered, High Court…
- Mansher v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Station House Officer Police Station Crime Branch Delhi